Affirmative action

Affirmative action (U.S. English), or positive discrimination (British English), is a policy or a program providing access to systems for people of a minority group who have traditionally been discriminated against, with the aim of creating a more egalitarian society. This consists of access to education, employment, health care, or social welfare.

United States

In the U.S., affirmative action only applies at transition points — times when individuals are changing their employment or enrollment. Thus, any potential advantage or disadvantage is predominantly conferred upon working age adults who hope to improve their lot through a change in employment or the pursuit of educational opportunities.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

This arrangement has the greatest impact on young people, while maintaining the status and position of established members of society. This overall framework was established by Presidential Decree in March 1961 by President Kennedy, but has evolved significantly.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Constitution of the United States, as well as numerous laws, outlaws discrimination against a group based on their race or ethnicity. Proponents believe affirmative action programs should not be ended until research has conclusively shown negative outcomes for non-preferred people or groups.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Basis in law

In the U.S. Constitution, the "equal protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment mandates that no governmental entity burden a person or deny them benefits because they are members of a particular racial group (see Constitutional Law, Nowak and Rotunda).

Related Topics:
Equal protection - Fourteenth Amendment - Constitutional Law - Nowak and Rotunda

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Johnson administration embraced affirmative action in 1965, by issuing U.S Executive order 11246, later amended by Executive order 11375. The order, as amended, aims "to correct the effects of past and present discrimination". It prohibits federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, skin color, religion, gender, or national origin. The Order requires that contractors take affirmative action to ensure that "protected class, underutilized applicants" are employed when available, and that employees are treated without negative discriminatory regard to their protected-class status.

Related Topics:
Johnson - 1965 - Executive order

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Order specifically requires certain organizations accepting federal funds to take affirmative action to increase employment of members of preferred racial or ethnic groups and women. Any organization with fifty or more employees and an aggregate revenue exceeding $50,000 from federal contracts during a twelve month period must have a written affirmative action plan. This plan must include goals and timetables for achieving full utilization of women and members of racial minorities, in quotas based on an analysis of the current workforce compared to the availability in the general labor pool of women and members of racial minorities.

Related Topics:
Federal - Quota

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The order is enforced by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs of the Employment Standards Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor and by the Office of Civil Rights of the Justice Department.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Section 717 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 require all United States Federal Agencies to implement affirmative employment opportunity programs for all federal employees. EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive 715 (MD 715) provides guidance as to how such programs are to be implemented.

Related Topics:
Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Rehabilitation Act of 1973 - EEOC

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Although it is well known which ethnic groups and races are preferred or "protected" by the Government, almost no list or enumeration is made in writing, presumably because of a fear that such a list would be held unconstitutional as a form of invidious discrimination against groups not on the list.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In the beginning, racial classifications that identified race were inherently suspect and subject to strict scrutiny. These classifications would only be upheld if necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest. Later the U.S. Supreme Court decided that racial classifications that benefited underrepresented minorities were to only be upheld if necessary and promoted a compelling governmental purpose. (See Richmond v. JA Croson Co.) There is no clear guidance about when government action is not "compelling", and such rulings are rare.

Related Topics:
U.S. Supreme Court - Richmond v. JA Croson Co.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Individual U.S. states e.g., Missouri also have orders that prohibit discrimination and outline affirmative action requirements with regard to race, creed, color, religion, national origin, gender, age, and disability status.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Implementation in universities

When minorities are actively sought or preferred, the reason given is usually that this is necessary to compensate for advantages to groups such as males or those of European descent from racism, sexism, results of historical circumstances, and institutional racism.

Related Topics:
Europe - Racism - Sexism - Institutional racism

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In the U.S., the most prominent form of affirmative action centers on access to education, particularly admission to universities and other forms of tertiary instruction. Race, ethnicity, native language, social class, geographical origin, parental attendance of the university in question (legacy admissions), and/or gender are often taken into account when assessing the meaning of an applicant's grades and test scores.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

For example, the college admission chances of a female university student will tend to be equal to that of a male student with SAT scores fifty points higher than hers.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Individuals can also be awarded scholarships and have fees paid on the basis of criteria listed above.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In the U.S., affirmative action programs at universities benefit mostly African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Native Americans. Asian Americans, although a racial minority, do not benefit at most colleges because the rate of college education among Asian Americans is higher than the other racial groups (including whites). See model minority for more information.

Related Topics:
African Americans - Hispanic Americans - Native Americans - Asian Americans - Model minority

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

An affirmative action study by Princeton researchers in 2005 attempted to break down and compare the effects of the practice among racial and special groups. The data from the study represent admissions disadvantage and advantage in terms of SAT points (on 1600-point scale):

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

• Blacks: +230
• Hispanics: +185
• Asians: −50
• Recruited athletes: +200
• Legacies (children of alumni): +160

Study (PDF)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The estimates for blacks, and to a lesser extent Hispanics, probably understate the disparity. Standardized tests tend to overpredict for individual, high-scoring members of populations with weaker test scores http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/em_bayes.htmlhttp://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/dct.htm. (One's SAT score predicts a certain level of performance. If one performs above this level, the test underpredicted; if the reverse, it overpredicted.) Thus, according to these analyses, accounting for group differences, a white with a score of 1,200 would actually be more, not equally, able on average than a black or Hispanic with the same score. Critics say that this failure to adjust scores to improve the test's predictive validity distorts the true scores of minorities, and indirectly everyone, as admissions is a zero sum game. Adjusting for this tendency would likely result in more controversy, however, as it is easily misconstrued.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Additionally, class rank, a statistic widely used in admissions, likely confers advantage on underperforming minorities. In California, Florida, and Texas public universities, affirmative action has been replaced with class rank and other programs. Class rank tends to discriminate against those at relatively competitive high schools, simply because high schools are not uniform in student ability. Thus a student with grades in the top ten percent at a mediocre school is unlikely to be equivalent or superior to a student at a elite school. Class rank, as a result, is more a measure of one's peers than of oneself. As such, some high schools refuse to rank their students. http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/04-22-05Fischer.htm

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Important Supreme Court cases

• Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 1978

:The Supreme Court held that the UC Davis medical school admissions program violated the equal protection clause with the institution of quotas for underrepresented minorities. However, the court ruled that race could be one of the factors in university admissions.

Related Topics:
Supreme Court - UC Davis

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

• Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003

:The Supreme Court ruled that race could be used as a criterion in school admissions and that it would not be in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The Court found that the University of Michigan Law School's narrowly-tailored policy was constitutional and appropriate "to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

• Gratz v. Bollinger, 2003

:The Supreme Court ruled that the University of Michigan's point-based undergraduate admissions policy that took race into account numerically was too mechanical and unconstitutional.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

An attorney who filed an amicus brief on behalf of Pennsylvania legislators and former legislators in Grutter v. Bollinger, Rep. Mark B. Cohen of Philadelphia, said that "The cumulative effect of the Bakke, Grutter, and Bollinger cases is that no one has a legal right to have any demographic characteristic they possess be considered a favorable point on their behalf, but an employer has a right to take into account the goals of the organization and the interests of American society in making decisions. This is a moderate, inclusive position that ably balances the various legal interests involved."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Other important cases:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

• Adarand Constructors v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995) (establishing strict scrutiny standard of review for race and ethnic-based Federal Affirmative Action programs).
• City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989) (strict scrutiny standard to state and local programs).